Forms of explanation and why they may matter
Abstract Explanations from neuroscience are threatening to replace those from psychology in the eyes and hands of journalists, university administrators, granting agencies, and research students. If replacement happens, much of psychology will exist only as part of the historical record. It, thus, m...
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
SpringerOpen
2018-12-01
|
| Series: | Cognitive Research |
| Online Access: | http://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s41235-018-0143-2 |
| id |
doaj-c91c6bd8622b46809f290d43ddb92515 |
|---|---|
| record_format |
Article |
| spelling |
doaj-c91c6bd8622b46809f290d43ddb925152020-11-25T02:53:49ZengSpringerOpenCognitive Research2365-74642018-12-01311910.1186/s41235-018-0143-2Forms of explanation and why they may matterJonathan Baron0Department of Psychology, University of PennsylvaniaAbstract Explanations from neuroscience are threatening to replace those from psychology in the eyes and hands of journalists, university administrators, granting agencies, and research students. If replacement happens, much of psychology will exist only as part of the historical record. It, thus, may be useful to understand what forms of explanation are used by the two fields. Such an understanding may help us explain how each field can contribute to the other and why they are different. I review several templates of psychological and neuroscientific explanation, and criticize some others. I argue that psychology (and neuroscience) should continue to exist. Neuroscience is not better than psychology, and it cannot replace psychology.http://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s41235-018-0143-2 |
| collection |
DOAJ |
| language |
English |
| format |
Article |
| sources |
DOAJ |
| author |
Jonathan Baron |
| spellingShingle |
Jonathan Baron Forms of explanation and why they may matter Cognitive Research |
| author_facet |
Jonathan Baron |
| author_sort |
Jonathan Baron |
| title |
Forms of explanation and why they may matter |
| title_short |
Forms of explanation and why they may matter |
| title_full |
Forms of explanation and why they may matter |
| title_fullStr |
Forms of explanation and why they may matter |
| title_full_unstemmed |
Forms of explanation and why they may matter |
| title_sort |
forms of explanation and why they may matter |
| publisher |
SpringerOpen |
| series |
Cognitive Research |
| issn |
2365-7464 |
| publishDate |
2018-12-01 |
| description |
Abstract Explanations from neuroscience are threatening to replace those from psychology in the eyes and hands of journalists, university administrators, granting agencies, and research students. If replacement happens, much of psychology will exist only as part of the historical record. It, thus, may be useful to understand what forms of explanation are used by the two fields. Such an understanding may help us explain how each field can contribute to the other and why they are different. I review several templates of psychological and neuroscientific explanation, and criticize some others. I argue that psychology (and neuroscience) should continue to exist. Neuroscience is not better than psychology, and it cannot replace psychology. |
| url |
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s41235-018-0143-2 |
| work_keys_str_mv |
AT jonathanbaron formsofexplanationandwhytheymaymatter |
| _version_ |
1724724274437029888 |